John Kasich (doing the introduction to the topic - I missed the first couple of words): "...to look at his medical records to decide if he should be charged with 'doctor shopping' for prescription pain killers.

Limbaugh's lawyer has already appealed, and yesterday he said Rush was blackmailed by his former housekeeper. Limbaugh, himself, said the Democrats are behind his legal troubles.

So could there really be a political agenda here? Joining us from Miami is former U.S. Attorney, Kendall Coffey.

Mr Coffey, why do they need to look at these very private medical records, you know, the relations between a patient and his doctor?"

Coffey: "Very sensitive, very confidential, and certainly protected by the law. But what the judge found, is that the prosecutor has a legitimate interest in them because of the theory of the prosecution, which is 'doctor shopping'. That is to say, according to the prosecution, 2000 pills purchased within a six month period from four different doctors, under Florida law, it's a class three felony to be going to different doctors within a 30-day period, without disclosing to one doctor that you're getting essentially the same prescription drug.

That's the theory of the prosecution - too early to tell whether it's going anywhere, but understandable that a judge would not want to shut down the prosecution this early in the process."

John: "Mr. Coffey, you've had a lot of experience in these sorts of things, ahhh, a prosecutor going after a guy who's got cronic pain, in and out of facilities, uhm, what's the typical way in which they would treat somebody who is a user of prescription drugs? Or an abuser of prescription drugs?"

Coffey: "Well, John that's the big question here, because there is a huge divide between users and traffickers. And we're not hearing any allegation that Rush Limbaugh is a trafficker.

So it's a fair question to see why is this degree of intense effort being dedicated to somebody who, at worst, is apparently an addict who developed an addiction as a result of severe back pain.

That's really the profile of a person that you don't try to put into jail, but you write that kind of prescription for that kind of person for community service, treatment, and that would seem to be the logical outcome here for Rush Limbaugh. I'm not clear why the prosecution is going more aggressively in this direction."

John: "You know, Mr. Coffey, I've never met you before, I know you have had a history of supportiing some Democrats, but that doesn't matter to me, you seem like a fair guy. When I look at this case, and I see this prosecutor doing this, I think this stinks. I think this is, ah, this is political. Your take on it."

Coffey: "Well, the judge found that it's good faith. And I would be surprised, John, if this were some conspiracy theory involving national Democrats. But let's look at some of the other things..."

John (interrupting): "I'm not saying that, but what about a prosecutor can make a name for himself in Palm Beach County, a Democrat taking down the big dog, Rush Limbaugh?"

Coffey: "Well, that's a concern in every case involving a major celebrity. Rush Limbaugh, seems like, if he were just another guy who had an addiction problem, this would have been wrapped up weeks ago along the lines of what I described; lots of community service, treatment, then at some point the charges are dropped -- no conviction, end of the matter.

What happens sometimes is these kind of high-profile cases take on a life of their own.

The police that are involved, want to push, push, push and develop the case fully. The local newspaper has editorialized basically in favor of pursuing the case further.

So, while, whatever may be the landscape in this case, it is pushing the prosecution further from a point where, early in October, John, they had sent clear signals, from my reading the situation, that they were not going to pursue Rush Limbaugh, because their targets are pill peddlers, not pill-poppers. Something's changed, here."

John: "Is it possible, Mr. Coffey, that he will not be charged? 'Cause, you know, we gotta make it clear, Rush has NOT been charged yet for anything. Is it possible that the prosecutor could walk away from this?"

Coffey: "Well, I think that it's entirely possible.

What I expect, after the back and forth - it's clearly gotten more adversarial in recent days - that at some point, when the press heat is off, and the public pressure is off, they're gonna sit down, and they're gonna work out a deal that, at the end of the day, despite extensive efforts, is gonna be the same treatment that anyone else would have gotten - rich man or poor man - what amounts to pre-trial intervention, and as we just talked about, community service, treatment, and the book is closed and the chapter is over."

John: "Well, I hope. And I hope that - you know, I don't want to, I don't want to, you know, rip the prosecutor -- I don't know enough about him -- but I hope that at the end of the day we get some justice and they got some fair treatment. Thanks for being with us." [End of interview.]

Coffey: "Well, that's a concern in every case involving a major celebrity. Rush Limbaugh, seems like, if he were just another guy who had an addiction problem, this would have been wrapped up weeks ago along the lines of what I described; lots of community service, treatment, then at some point the charges are dropped -- no conviction, end of the matter.

I agree. That's where the case should end if there is something out there and he -- Rush -- hasn't lied about it like Martha or Billary. The question I have is whether Rush has even offered the olive leaf or is he still in denial and blaming the vast left wing conspiracy? And let me answer these questions first: I don't hate Rush. I am not a member of the DU. I'm pro-gun, anti-baby killing, and I wany a bigger tax cut for the people who actually pay the taxes.

I think you can draw some parallel between Martha Stewart and Rush. They both have large gare groups of opponents and political hay can be made with their prosecution. Both cases are weak on general practice support. Neither would be in the situation they are in if not for their celeberty.

That said, I think Rush should take a long hard look at his harshness on some subjects. We can and should condem the act (drug addiction in this case) but it is up to some higher entity to condem the addict.

Has this been established as fact yet? Or was this just something from the National Enquirer? I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, but I'm having a hard time remembering which things I read are fact and which are hearsay.

Nice thought, but your line of reasoning would make taped confessions inadmissable. You can't be compelled, but you can be tricked.

"Tricking" someone into confessing could be construed as entrapment.

Taped confessions are made with the acknowledgement of the confessor, unless it is done with a wiretap while the perpetrator is in the act of committing a crime.

Going through someone's medical records, which were recorded when someone was (presumably) not committing a crime, and then using what one finds against the person, is something else entireley.

The chronology of one's medical records could be seen as the same as when a scientist cuts down a tree and inspects the rings in the trunk for changes in weather over the years the tree was alive. Or, it could be seen as when drug testers take hair samples (not urine samples, which are immediate) to see if the person used drugs during the prior 8-16 weeks (depending on hair length).

It seems to me that this is self-incrimination if there is no other evidence from which to charge someone.

"Very sensitive, very confidential, and certainly protected by the law. But what the judge found, is that the prosecutor has a legitimate interest in them because of the theory of the prosecution, which is 'doctor shopping'. That is to say, according to the prosecution, 2000 pills purchased within a six month period from four different doctors, under Florida law, it's a class three felony to be going to different doctors within a 30-day period, without disclosing to one doctor that you're getting essentially the same prescription drug."

_________________________________ How knowledgeable do you suppose the good citizens of Florida are of this law?

How did the elected state officials inform their citizens, who incidentally just so happen to be theoretically their bosses, of the seriousness of this "doctor shopping law"?

Did they, like big tobacco companies, purchase public service advertising space to advise those they govern of this law?

And, how much notice period do regular guy and gal Florida citizen get prior to the enactment of the law to show that regular citizens are informed of the profound changes in their personal lives where in many cases, citizens prior to the enactment of this law, just perhaps in the good American capitalistic society, freeely went about looking for doctor(s) to treat them for their ailment(s)?

I truly do think a new Citizen Protection Against Law Making Legislators Act.

62
posted on 12/26/2003 7:12:54 PM PST
by harpo11
(Foolish Democrat Leaders Have Crumbled in Abject Moronitiy in Retreating From the War on Terrorism.)

"That is to say, according to the prosecution, 2000 pills purchased within a six month period from four different doctors, under Florida law, it's a class three felony to be going to different doctors within a 30-day period, without disclosing to one doctor that you're getting essentially the same prescription drug."

"And with a being a role model more ought to be expected of you and when you fall short, its no surprise your punishment should be more severe than if you are an ordinary person cause in your deportment, you set an example for others to follow."

I am interested in your comments about Rush Limbaugh being "a role model."

How do you view him as a role model?

I always felt that the person/people who serves/served as our President of the United States of America were supposed to be serious role models. But, since the Clinton Era, I'm not so sure we can honestly believe for such principled role models, after all weren't we constantly told by the media and liberal pundits that it's what the person does for the good of others, and as far as I can see Rush Limbaugh is very good for lots of important things that over 21 Million Listeners crave and demand, and not what he does in his private life.

It is too obvious to me that Rush is being vigorously and vehementally persecuted because what he believes has overwhelming dynamic impact on politics.

Someone, or perhaps many have lots to gain by silencing him and/or slashing the power of his impact.

I will not forget what Rush did to rip open the heavy dark curtain hiding Mrs. Bill Cllinton's Secret Health Care Task Force. Stopped it cold.

Now, I ask, who has the most to gain if Rush loses?

And, who gallantly stood up and announced on his popular and multi-million dollar revenue producing radio show using the Golden Microphone to proudly claim that he was Mr. Big of Mrs. Clinton's fantastical invention, the VRWC?

Well, that must have p#$$~d her heinous into a royal snit. How dare he? And, much like the Queen of Hearts, tells her minions "off with his..." microphone.

Hey, is this not absurd? The whole thing against Rush is absurd and the State of Florida IMHO is capriciously wasting the hard earned tax money of the citizens which better could be used to feed hungry children, or heal those suffering in pain, or for education and school lunch programs, and giving it to the Saving The Beach Turtle Task Force.

I've been thinking along the same lines. It is highly credible that someone in the household who was "trusted" did things that were not at all trustworthy to satisfy their own addictions and/or financial gain.

It could be that Rush was stalked and preyed upon by his "trusted" staff.

I seriously believe that the light of truth and vindication will shine steadily and brightly on Rush Limbaugh. He is not alone. Many stand proud and tall beside him.

"I think even Florida residents could understand a law that says don't commit fraud to buy drugs"

I appreciate your comments but are you completely sure? I recall that many feared that they did not vote properly for Gore in the 2000 National Election. I do not think we can safely assume that laws and/or rules, instructions are understood by all citizens.

But, IMV, Rush is not a role model. Why should he be? He is a paid commentator and a very wealthy and successful one at that. If indeed, he did all the things that he is accused of, sure he should be given equal treatment under the law. But, so far what he is accused of doing is just allegations other than the unfortunate circumstance of being addicted to pain medicene.

I always believed, perhaps naively, that we are equal under the law and justice is blind.

Anyway, because I support Rush's cause, does not mean I have, as you judge without knowing me, a "need".

>> No, Rush is being subjected to harsher treatment cause he IS a celebrity. And with a being a role model more ought to be expected of you and when you fall short, its no surprise your punishment should be more severe than if you are an ordinary person cause in your deportment, you set an example for others to follow. <<

Ya, right, the papers are just full of celebrities subjected to harsher treatment. If Rush is guilty of a crime I expect him to pay the same penalty as anyone else. To this point, there is no evidence put forth that he is guilty of a crime. The Prosecutors are on a fishing expedition hoping to score. This is inapproriate treatment for Rush or anyone else. The more I learn about this case, the more it stinks.

They have siezed the records of four doctors; the doctor treating Rush for his back disorder, the doctor in the same office complex who subbed for the back doctor when he was not available; the doctor who was treating him during his hearing loss phase and the doctor who did the cochlear inplant. Rush ahd a valid reason for seeing each. It is an amazing stretch to classify it as doctor shopping.

I remember when Kendall Coffey got a bit depressed and went to a now defunct strip bar in South Miami known as LIPSTIK (correct spelling) and put away a whole magnum of very expensive champagne, before catching himself a string of table dances in a small private room off the main bar. He lost control of himself and wound up biting the dancer on the arm. At the time he was the chief federal prosecutor in this area. Not for long, after the bite. Another Clintonista, I discount anything he has to say. He's another gun grabbing sack of...well, you know.

>> Try to imagine the authorities even taking up the case if he wasn't famous. That's what I've been getting at - the more conspicuous you are the more people expect from you. And if you fail to meet their expectations, no one wants to hear from you again. True, OJ was never convicted of murder but he's now the world's loneliest man which in a condign way is a fitting punishment for his crime. Every one may start out with a presumption of equal treatment under the law but their station in life and people's perception of it, does influence the kind of treatment they'll get in the event they're suspected of wrong-doing. <<

The one case you use to support your argument is one where somebody the majority believe guilty got off, then twist it to sound like he got nailed instead. Try giving us a real example of a celebrity held to a higher standard. And I mean in a criminal sense, not the race junk the use to nail people.

>> To get 2,000 pills in 6 months ...How many of the type of pain killers a day could someone take and not die or be totally unable to perform their job at the level that Rush does?

This works out to about 12 pills per day. An addict might need to take as many as 3 or 4 pills at a time to get pain relief due to built up tolerance. That means taking pills 3 or 4 times a day. It's not that excessive. I took two hydracodone 3 times a day for just a pinched nerve. The doctor said I might get a little loopy from it. I never noticed even the slightest effect to my alertness. It did kill the pain until the damage healed, though.

>> The "2000 pills..." is establishing probable cause to suspect that the law may have been broken, allowing the search warrent to be filed. <<

As Mr. Black points out before the judge, the prosecution avoided supplying information on who the four doctors were in obtaining their search warrant. Had they provided the information on who the doctors were and the reason that Rush was seeing each, I doubt it would have supported probable cause.

I hadn't put together the part about Hillary needing to neutralize him before she starts her public campaign, but you are very astute in seeing this as part of her effort to 'shape the landscape.'

To have this scumbag traitor, Coffey, out there 'splaining things just seals it for me, that this is part of the Clinton, McAuliffe, DNC Slime Machine. Hope Rush has a reliable group that he uses for security, if you know what I mean.

If you read the court records you will find Rush did consult 4 doctors. Three of the doctors were connected to the same office. It is not a case of doctor shopping if you go to different doctors in the same practice. Two of the doctors were in the same practice. The third was a substitute that handled these two doctors patients when one of them was on vacation or taking time off.

"As Mr. Black points out before the judge, the prosecution avoided supplying information on who the four doctors were in obtaining their search warrant. Had they provided the information on who the doctors were and the reason that Rush was seeing each, I doubt it would have supported probable cause."

EVEN after Black explained this, the present Judge did NOT quash the search warrent, as he should have done if he felt this information would have effected the earlier decision.

Only a true hater of Rush's work, effectiveness would try. That's why I think CyberAnt nailed it with the HIllary connection.

Using her/their logic, this prosecution would make all the sense in the world.

They've got to get (and keep) him off the air in order for her nomination and election to see the light of day. Remember how he exposed and ridiculed her so effectively during her Health Care fiasco?

This is going to be fun to watch, CommonTator. I'll look forward to reading your takes on it. I hope Rush is up for the fight, especially since they will do all that they can to destroy him up close and personal.

My understanding is that Rush probably chewed the pills for maximum effectiveness. Further he may have bought in large quantities so he would not have to expose himself repeatedly. He also had the money to buy in bulk, and if I had his addiction I would have bought in large quantities so as to demean myself as little as possible.

Looks like 1700-1800 over six months, when you subtract the non-analgesics. Taking 9-10 pills per day for severe, chronic pain is not unusual. Pain specialists have said this case is setting back pain management treatment 100 years. It is difficult to space prescriptions perfectly, when you have a patient that travels a lot. (That is also a frequent ploy by drug-seekers, "I'll be out of town when my next script is due")

"doctor-shopping" the term given to a law against obtaining drugs through fraud - So it really dosen't refer to the law, simply the way that many criminals will break it.

Many here on FR are given the wrong impression of that law by what it is called "in the trade".

Suspicions might have been perked up by some of the activities in that single pharmacy we know about - such as the multiple purchases adding up to 340 Norco, and 60 Lorcet in a 16 day period, or perhaps 60 Norco followed by another 240 Norco THE NEXT DAY.

Pain specialists have said this case is setting back pain management treatment 100 years.

I'm not sure I understand why. Do you mean that this is a valid way to manage pain and this case is making it look like it's not a good way to do it because of the investigation? Or are you saying that Rush's continued use of pain medication for his problems is setting a bad example for people who need to manage their pain differently? I'm surprised that this case would have any impact on pain management treatment in general.

I have a suggestion. I think it would be helpful if all of Rush's doctors would send a sworn-affadavit to the prosecutors office stating that they knew of the existence of the others doctors and previous prescritions. . (by bringing this matter to a quick conclusion)... This suggestion will save thousands of dollars of the state's money, and millions of Rush's legal bill. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Part of the original story was that the prosecutors had been SITTING ON THIS INFO FOR 2 YEARS. Then .. all of a sudden they want a search warrant ..?? Give me a break! This is so obviously a POLITICAL HIT .. there is just no other reason for this to be going on.

95
posted on 12/27/2003 5:32:59 PM PST
by CyberAnt
(America is the greatest force for good on the planet ..!!)

Do you happen to know when this Florida State "Doctor Shopping" Legislation was signed into Law?,p> Moreover, why isn't the DA going after big drug companies that create and manufacture medicene that has high potential of causing addiction?

Why isn't the FDA called to task for allowing drugs to be manufactured that are addictive?

After all, IMHO, it's the same as tobacco, people who smoke cigarettes get addicted to nicotine and are considered innocent victims of big tobacco's nasty risky schemes. When a doctor gives his patient a perscription for pain medication that can be highly addictive to some patients who are told to use it for pain relief, isn't the doctor in some ways contributing to the unsuspecting patient's potential addiction problem even though he seriously wants and desires to help his patient?

>had been SITTING ON THIS INFO FOR 2 YEARS . There is a reason for that. The matter in question was pretty much a 'tough to get a conviction' issue until this year, when Rush helps the prosecution by by supplying ...on pharmacy records... evidence of (supposed) additional crime.

Well .. you can believe whatever you want. The FL prosecutors cannot have much if they have to pour over Rush's medical files "to see if they can find anything". If they need to "find" something .. then they don't HAVE ANYTHING.

It's a hit .. it's a setup .. and lately I'm even thinking the maid could have been in on the setup. That may require tinfoil, but I just do not trust Hillary. She will do anything, and pay any price to get the WH. If people have a problem believe that .. they need to read "An Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election". Yes, I know the story is about Al Gore, but the methods Al used were classic DNC-Clinton trademark corruption.

99
posted on 12/27/2003 9:07:23 PM PST
by CyberAnt
(America is the greatest force for good on the planet ..!!)

I agree with you on the 'maid issue', that coulda been a setup. Also, IMO, an important issue is whether Rush lied to his doctors. It will be interesting when the doctors are questioned at trial. The maid rats on Rush. Rush rats on the maid. Will the doctors rat on Rush?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.